Delhi High Court
Umesh Sharma vs Rajkumar & Ors. on 19 March, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19th March, 2010
+ Crl.L.P.No.97/2010
UMESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gautam Narayan, Ms.Kirti
Man Singh and Ms.Pis Singh,
Advocates for complainant.
versus
RAJKUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.3284/2010 (Exemption)
Allowed.
Crl.M.A.No.3283/2010 (Condonation of Delay)
Allowed. Delay condoned.
Crl.L.P.No.97/2010
1. Having heard learned counsel for the complainant and
having perused the impugned decision as also having perused
the certified copies of the testimonies of the various witnesses,
we find no case being made out to grant leave to appeal.
2. The husband and the parents-in-law of deceased Sarika
were charged of the offence punishable under Section
498A/304-B IPC.
3. Acquitting the accused the learned trial Judge has held
that the suicide note Ex.P-3 of the deceased clearly recorded
that nobody was responsible for her action. It has been further
noted by the learned trial Judge that in their statement
Ex.PW-3/A and PW-3/B recorded before the learned SDM, the
parents of deceased Sarika, did not utter a word that their
daughter was being harassed on account of any dowry
demand. Not only that. In their statements the parents of
Sarika clearly told the learned SDM that during the subsistence
of her marriage, Sarika never complained to them of any
dowry harassment. The third piece of evidence noted by the
learned trial Judge is that the husband of Sarika had named
Sarika as the nominee in every asset of his. Learned trial
Judge has further noted that appearing as witnesses of the
prosecution in the Court, for the first time, the parents of
Sarika made allegation of dowry being demanded at the time
of marriage. One dowry article demanded as per the parents
of Sarika was a motor-cycle by the husband of Sarika. Learned
trial Judge has noted that Sarika's husband already possessed
a motor-cycle, and thus formed an opinion that said allegation
was exaggeration.
4. The learned trial judge has referred to the defence
evidence and has discussed the same as under:-
"The accused persons in their statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. have specifically stated that
they did not subject victim Sarika to cruelty nor
they demanded any dowry article as alleged by the
prosecution witnesses. The defence evidence
produced by the accused persons by producing DW-
1 to DW-9 also shows that accused Raj Kumar made
his deceased wife, the nominee in his Life Insurance
Policy and accused Raj Kumar held a joint bank
account with his wife in which his salary used to be
deposited per month. There is also evidence that
the accused Jai Narain, the father-in-law of the
victim has never remained posted at a place where
his son accused Raj Kumar was posted. This rules
out the proximity between accused Leelawati and
Jai Narain with victim Sarika to subject her to any
cruelty or harassment. The accused persons have
also produced defence evidence to show that at the
marriage of daughter of accused Jai Narain he
withdrew the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from his
Provident Fund Account. The defence of the
accused persons also show that accused Raj Kumar
had a motorcycle which rules out the probability of
demand of motorcycle from victim Sarika or her
parents by the accused Raj Kumar. The said
withdrawals from Provident Fund Account by
accused Jai Narain rules out the allegations of
demand of any money on the occasion of marriage
of daughter of accused Jai Narain from the parents
of deceased Sarika. Therefore, keeping in view the
burden to prove the defence upon the accused is
comparatively light; though the prosecution is
required to discharge the burden of proof of its case
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused persons can
establish their defence by producing evidence
which is acceptable on preponderance of
probabilities, therefore, it can be said that neither
the prosecution evidence is convincing enough to
establish subjecting the victim Sarika to cruelty,
harassment or the demand of dowry by the accused
persons and defence of the accused persons also
rules out this possibility. Savitri Devi's case
(supra), Sangeeta Kalra's case (supra), Neera
Singh's case (supra), Raman Kumar's case
(supra) and Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh's case
(supra) are distinguishable on facts."
5. An independent witness PW-8 the landlord of accused
Rajkumar, Sarika's husband, where Sarika and her husband
resided had deposed against the accused. The learned trial
Judge has, in interim page 30 of the impugned decision, dealt
with the testimony of PW-8 and has highlighted the
improvements made by said witness vis-à-vis the statement
recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
6. Suffice would it be to state that where the view taken by
the learned trial Judge on the evidence led is a probable view,
merely because another view is possible on the same
evidence, would not justify the Appellate Court to re-
appreciate the evidence to take the other view.
7. Of course, it is in the domain of the Appellate Court to,
while re-appreciating the evidence, see whether material
evidence and circumstances have been ignored or whether
inconsequential circumstances have been given prominence
more due than what was required. Lastly, if it is found that the
conclusion drawn is so illogical that no person would draw the
same, the Appellate Court can re-look into the matter.
8. Finding none of the aforesaid being attracted, we hold
that no case is made out to grant leave to appeal against the
impugned decision, which we note is a well considered
decision.
9. This leave petition is dismissed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 19, 2010
'mr'
